@Skooks: Well people really seem to understand this thing how they wish. We think that carbon fiber itself is not unethical. The process is unethical that produces it to consumer mountain bikes. To that price people buy them you need cheap labour and cutting corners in waste management. The labour intensive process can not be automated so the future is going to be dark. It's not about the carbon footprint nor the material itself, it's matter of ethics that we should move forward to automation which is the future.
The conversation here has been concentrated too much on the carbon footprint. Where we left off with the story was about ethics. It might be hard to understand this ethical point. Scandinavian culture emphasises equality and fairness. We also cherish not making unnecessary harm.
What you suggest that we should not making bikes at all is a paradox. There are dozens of comments here that if we would care about the world we should quit doing everything. It's also a paradox. We have chosen this way and if we can make an ethical choice, we should do it. There are a lot of companies that don't give a shit about ethics and nobody is blaming them about it but when some companies are trying to think about ethics they need to have very good reasons for it. Just like we see on this forum.
People might think that there are a group of marketing guys answering here from Pole but it's all me and all these thoughts are from my head. -Leo Kokkonen
If you just read the whole story, you will get our point. https://polebicycles.com/why-arent-we-going-for-carbon-frames/

@snowwcold55: We can calculate our impact but not carbon impact because the data is not there. This is why there is no point publishing anything from our side. Nobody can provide the data at the moment and even Spechialized's research can not give the data. It just says "needs more research". It's funny that there is no interviews from Spesh at this article even though they seem to have at least some data. Spechialized is 49% owned by Giant so anyone would assume that they can get the data more easily.
In any case. We can only look at our data and use practical thinking from the process cost in Asia and compare it to Finland. When we compare this process cost it's beyond reasonable if the bikes would be sold with same margin in high volume.
For example, there are succesfull aluminum bikes made in Germany but no carbon. This article basically says that carbon process would be easier. How come there is no succesfull carbon frame factories in Europe then?
So if we can not make these frames even nearly with the same cost in a country that cares about the impacts to people and nature, how is it possible to produce the frames without cutting corners with a fraction of a cost in Asia?

@snowwcold55: My next plan is bigger. Let's make bikes first and have fun making them.
But please don't put words in to my mouth. I don't say it's unethical to use carbon. It's the process with cheap labor and cutting corners in waste management that is unethical.

Hello Henri. We have weighted the carbon frames that actually carry loads that the bikers put on them and match the weight on them. Our frames are bigger and actually if you would make same size frame from carbon, you would get quite same weight. Actually the figure is 80% stronger.
The bottom line is that we want to be sure that the bike actually rides good and is not just light. You can use high modulus carbon fiber and get a light "stiff" but a weak bike.

The factories who produce molds do charge for design and production. The molds are more like one off stuff than stems for example so you need more cash for one piece. There are a lot of testing involved for example. The steel they use is a bit more expensive and polished mold needs more time. The last part is that on carbon frame you need more molds for each sizes. Here you can save cost on the cost of looks or go individual molds for each frame size. If you make big batches is more reasonable to make individual molds. Cheaper way to make different sizes is to find an angle to the down- and toptube and just stretch the connection point from size XS or make two basic molds etc. There are many ways. Basically if you just think about this labor, material and machining time you will end up with five figure numbers.
The molds need service as RC said in the article so there are more cost in there. The manufacturing time for one unit is quite big if you calculate the EPS mold, silicone, prepreg, prepreg cut, laying, curing, machining, bonding, sandblast, precoat, sanding, prepaint, paint, stickers, clearcoat.
Here is a good channel to see what quality the mass produced carbon bicycle products actually are: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY9JUMYI54lLOHpb_zbIedQ

@smoothmoose: RC didn't publish my whole arguments. This is why people think that we are hiding behind a "trade secret". If we would reveal our production methods, we would give out a lot of our knowledge in design and manufacturing. The reason we don't try to patent it is simply because in that wey we would just tell the world how we actually make the bikes. I think you don't need to know how much of the billet is machined away. If you read the full explanation, you will understand how much easier the process is and how much less effort there is to produce the Mahcine rather than the carbon product. Think about this: why would we invest a lot more to our own CNC factory instead of just going to China and produce the old fashioned way if our way is worse?
Here's our conversation: https://polebicycles.com/aluminium-vs-carbon-battle/